Theoretical framework and literary review

In the early 20^th century, fabricated texts like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion circulated across Europe, offering a unified “explanation” for world events through a supposed Jewish plot. The Protocols provided a master frame for interpreting current events, allowing antisemites to fit diverse happenings, from economic turmoil to political crises, into a single, Judeocentric narrative (Bronner Reference Bronner2003).

By the 1920s, such thinking had become entrenched: across Europe, extremists routinely claimed “the Jew” was behind political subversion, cultural decadence, and racial degeneration, making this conspiracy lens a central tenet of antisemitic thought. Notably, Jews were paradoxically blamed for both communism and capitalism, for both promoting liberal decadence and fomenting social revolution. This internal inconsistency underscores that antisemitism was never about specific Jewish behaviors; rather, “the Jew” became a catch-all personification of modern anxieties (Schuller Reference Schuller2021).

Rather than analyzing social problems in complex or material terms, far-right extremists sometimes view history as driven by secret plots (Fürstenberg Reference Fürstenberg2022; Thorleifsson 2022). Such conspiratorial worldviews are termed “epistemological master frames,” a concept borrowed from social movement theory and adapted here to extremism studies. Richard Hofstadter’s notion of the “paranoid style” captures how believers adopt a monological mindset, reading all societal developments as proof of deliberate, hidden plots (Hofstadter Reference Hofstadter2012).

In these systems, evidence contrary to a Jewish conspiracy is reframed as part of the cover-up, while any new crisis, economic downturn, immigration waves, or public health measures simply reinforce the preexisting narrative (Wood et al. Reference Wood, Douglas and Sutton2012). Thus, antisemitism functions less as a set of isolated biases than as a unifying logic, an overarching interpretive framework that undergirds far-right political (in our case, GD) thought by labeling Jews as the ultimate antagonists behind all social, economic, and political ills.

Although far-right parties across Europe occasionally invoke coded antisemitic tropes, they typically avoid flaunting them so as not to trigger widespread condemnation or legal repercussions. Cas Mudde remarks that radical right movements typically camouflage direct Jew-hatred behind broader conspiratorial allusions, such as attacks on global finance or other stereotypical dog whistles (Mudde Reference Mudde2007).

GD, however, departed from that norm — even in far-right standards — by explicitly targeting Jewish individuals and institutions in official pronouncements, thus deliberately crossing a taboo that has anchored European politics and cultural norms since 1945 (Rathje Reference Rathje, Lange, Mayerhofer, Porat and Schiffman2021). This willingness to flaunt antisemitism, rather than hide it behind circumlocutions, shows that GD’s leadership saw explicit Jew-hatred as more than incidental bigotry; it functioned as a visible repudiation of postwar moral boundaries.

Similarly, Ruth Wodak’s discourse-analytic framework highlights how far-right movements often code their antisemitism behind veils of economic critique, globalist suspicion, or alleged anti-elitism (Wodak Reference Wodak, Rydgren and Ryden2018). In GD’s case, much of this rhetorical subtlety is abandoned. As we shall see, parliamentary outbursts, party statements, and print materials from the 1990s onward regularly invoked the figure of “the Jew” as the hidden manipulator behind national crises, ranging from Greece’s mounting debt to destabilizing border disputes. Rather than playing on half-hidden insinuations, GD produced a discourse of unfiltered antisemitism that functioned as a test of credibility before its inner circle.

Such norm-breaking resonates with Roger Griffin’s concept of palingenetic ultranationalism, wherein fascist-inspired movements demand a radical rupture in the name of a mythic national regeneration (Griffin Reference Griffin1991). GD’s persistent references to conspiracy theories about Jewish control over global finance or international media can be interpreted as part of a transformative agenda that frames Greece’s (and Europe’s) supposed restoration as contingent upon exposing and eliminating sinister, extraterritorial influences.

This quest for a purging rebirth, propelled by conspiratorial narratives, closely parallels interwar fascist strategies that designated “the Jew” as an omnipresent, malevolent force to be uprooted for the sake of national salvation (Niewyk Reference Niewyk2007). While classic fascism emerged before the Holocaust compelled a widespread European rejection of outright antisemitism (Kallis Reference Kallis2009), GD’s contemporary discourse revisits these antisemitic motifs with a specific sense of transgression: it consciously weaponizes rhetoric that mainstream parties shun, elevating it as a mark of purity and revolutionary authenticity.

Furthermore, Erich Fromm’s classic analysis of authoritarian psychology sheds additional light on the emotional power behind such unrepentant antisemitism. In times of intense social and economic turmoil, many people seek security and relief from anxiety by subscribing to rigid ideologies that promise immediate clarity and identify an easily graspable foe (Fromm Reference Fromm1994). GD’s relentless condemnation of Jews as the sinister architects of everything from austerity measures to migrant influxes resonates with that impulse, providing both a scapegoat for frustrations and a sense of collective mission: if “the Jew” is the cause, then attacking “the Jew” is the solution.

Moreover, Tamir Bar-On’s discussion of ideological continuities in contemporary fascism underscores that this pattern is not a mere echo of Nazi-era bigotry; it serves a deliberate strategic function, knitting together a cohesive worldview that is at once reassuring to the disoriented and shocking to the mainstream (Bar-On Reference Bar-On2007). By publicly restoring Jew-hatred to the forefront of its discourse, GD proclaims its willingness to transgress the strongest norms of postwar Europe, thus reestablishing antisemitism as an anchoring principle for its insurgent brand of extreme nationalism.

The conspiratorial framework that GD employed finds parallels in other European extremist movements, though rarely with such totalizing scope. Some go through similar “Jewish-American global conspiracies,” while others employ comparable narratives about Jewish control of foreign policy (Drucker Reference Drucker2024; Subotic 2022). However, these instances typically remain confined to specific issue areas rather than constituting an overarching epistemological system. Similarly, transnational neo-Nazi networks often share antisemitic conspiracy theories across borders, but individual parties usually adapt these narratives to their specific national contexts rather than adopting them as comprehensive worldviews.

This comparative analysis reveals that while antisemitic conspiracy thinking appears across European far-right movements, GD’s systematic deployment of such narratives as a totalizing interpretive framework represents a particularly extreme configuration. The epistemological master frame concept developed here could illuminate similar dynamics in other movements where conspiracy theories serve as organizing principles, whether targeting Jews or other groups. Future research might examine how different European far-right parties construct coherent worldviews from fragmented grievances, offering analytical tools applicable to extremist formations across diverse national and cultural contexts.

Antisemitic discourse within Greek far-right movements is not an invention of GD, nor is it absent from broader Greek political culture (Ellinas Reference Ellinas2020). This historical continuity of racialist and antisemitic ideology is vital for contextualizing GD’s trajectory.

The ideological foundation of GD stems directly from earlier extremist movements. Greece produced Kostas Plevris, identified as a well-known Holocaust denier and the former leader of the 4th of August party. The GD itself was founded in 1980 by individuals rooted in this neo-fascist tradition, specifically associated with the Party of August 4th. This connection highlights GD’s origins in a distinct strain of anti-democratic, ultra-nationalist thought established during the metapolitefsi (Ellinas Reference Ellinas2020; Κολοβός 2005).

GD’s founder, Nikos Michaloliakos, demonstrated this continuity early on. He was arrested and imprisoned for violence in 1976, where he met George Papadopoulos, the imprisoned colonel of the Greek junta. Michaloliakos was subsequently involved in activities alongside other neo-fascists, including Antonios Geronikolakos.

Michaloliakos was later convicted in 1978 for his involvement in a bombing group, associated with the 4th of August party, though his sentence was significantly reduced in 1979. These activities, occurring immediately after the restoration of democracy, underscore the deep roots of organized political violence and ideological extremism in Greece decades before GD’s electoral breakthrough (Κολοβός Reference Κολοβός2005; Ψαρράς Reference Ψαρράς2012).

This pre-existing ideological strain openly embraced National Socialist principles. The GD magazine featured extensive content on ideological principles, leading figures like Adolf Hitler, and “the Jewish question” (Ellinas Reference Ellinas2020; Psarras 2012). The stated aim of the publication was to mobilize readers against the “established System of democracy and Bolshevism, and their Jewish patrons” (Ellinas Reference Ellinas2020, 64). Crucially, GD explicitly adopted the principle of “racialism” (φυλετισμός), defined as “the attempt to maintain the purity of the Race” (Ellinas Reference Ellinas2020, 67). Michaloliakos affirmed that the nation’s key element is “common descent, common blood, race and biological kinship” (Ellinas Reference Ellinas2020, 67). This emphasis on biological superiority and ethnic exclusion forms the core of their ideology (Vasilopoulou and Halikiopoulou Reference Vasilopoulou and Halikiopoulou2015).

LAOS (Popular Orthodox Rally), the major far-right party preceding GD’s breakthrough, illustrates the nuances within the right wing. LAOS officials, while holding xenophobic and anti-immigrant views, publicly sought to distinguish between Judaism and Zionism, aiming for a less extreme public profile compared to GD’s explicit racialism (Ellinas Reference Ellinas2020; Vasilopoulou and Halikiopoulou Reference Vasilopoulou and Halikiopoulou2015). LAOS was classified as a radical right party, whereas GD was consistently categorized as an extremist right party, adhering to National Socialist and fascist principles (Κολοβός 2005).

LAOS’s relatively more pragmatic approach stood in contrast to GD’s totalizing ideological framework, which continuously identified “international Zionism” as a critical external enemy conspiring against the Greeks, alongside the EU, Germany, and the USA. This consistent dedication to a totalizing, racially-driven conspiratorial worldview distinguishes GD’s extremism from the politically moderated radicalism attempted by LAOS.

Conversely, not all of the Greek far-right is antisemitic. Voice of Reason, led by MEP Afroditi Latinopoulou, represents a fervent supporter of Israel and sees it as an integral part of the Western world (Λατινοπούλου Reference Λατινοπούλου2023; Reference Λατινοπούλου2024a; Reference Λατινοπούλου2024b). This demonstrates the diversity within Greek far-right positions regarding Jews and Israel, further underscoring GD’s particular approach to antisemitism.

Following this, this article addresses a critical gap in existing scholarship by not only applying established theoretical frameworks to the specific case of GD but also providing a revealing window into far-right and neo-Nazi political thought. By systematically analyzing how antisemitism functions as both an epistemological framework and deliberate normative transgression within GD, this research offers crucial insights for understanding the internal logic of contemporary extremist movements.

Before moving on to the methodology and analytical parts of this study, it is essential to note that GD’s ideological rhetoric intentionally blurs any meaningful distinction between Zionism and Judaism, presenting both as intertwined elements of an alleged global Jewish conspiracy.

Within GD’s discourse, Jews are consistently portrayed as an inherently sinister and clandestine force dedicated to manipulating world events from behind the scenes to achieve global domination. Zionism, which fundamentally represents the national self-determination of the Jewish people (Brenner Reference Brenner2011), is distorted within this conspiratorial worldview into merely one facet of an overarching Jewish plot. By systematically collapsing distinctions between religious, ethnic, cultural, and political identities, GD constructs an imagined monolithic Jewish entity responsible for a wide array of societal and geopolitical crises, thereby justifying its aggressive and exclusionary nationalist stance.

Although criticism of the state of Israel or its policies is not inherently antisemitic, GD’s supposed critiques of Israel are indistinguishable from their broader antisemitic agenda. Their attacks on Zionism and Judaism alike stem from the same central premise: an alleged intrinsic corruption and malevolence within the Jewish psyche. GD does not frame its criticism in terms of political disagreement or human rights concerns but rather leverages it to propagate a narrative of inherent Jewish malignancy and conspiratorial dominance.

By equating Zionism directly with global Jewish conspiracies, GD explicitly portrays Israel’s actions not as state policies or geopolitical strategies but as manifestations of a supposed essential Jewish nature. In doing so, GD reduces complex international relations and conflicts to simplistic, hateful stereotypes of Jewish duplicity and control. Thus, their rhetoric surrounding Israel reveals itself to be fundamentally antisemitic, reflecting deeply entrenched prejudices rather than legitimate political or ideological criticism. To sum, GD’s discourse reveals that when the party targets Zionism or Israel, it is fundamentally directing its animosity toward Jews as a whole, reinforcing an age-old antisemitic trope under the guise of political critique.

Methodology

This study applies qualitative discourse analysis to examine how antisemitic rhetoric and conspiratorial narratives shaped GD’s agenda. The primary data consists of GD’s official newspaper archive, spanning from issue #1 (January 10, 1993) to issue #1166 (December 25, 2019), totaling over 10300 pages. The pages are preserved as scanned JPG files for each page of the issues, with only the latest 170 issues available in PDF format. All materials were systematically catalogued by date, issue number, and source, then stored in a secure digital archive. Some issues remain accessible through various internet archives, particularly the latest PDF issues, while the older scanned materials have been privately collected and are not accessible for public view.Footnote ¹

Of the 1166 newspaper issues analyzed, 771 contained at least one reference to anti-Israel Middle Eastern coverage, global Zionist conspiracies, “Zionist-American” control, or explicit antisemitic statements. This means that approximately 66% of all issues published contained some form of antisemitic reference, demonstrating the pervasive nature of such content throughout GD’s publication history. However, while antisemitism was a widespread theme, the content proved highly repetitive, recycling the same arguments, consistently reinforcing the same narrative of Jewish manipulation and subversion without significant variation or expansion. Given this redundancy and the sheer volume of available material, it was deemed unnecessary and analytically unproductive to cite every antisemitic incident.

Instead, this study employs representative examples selected for their illustrative power in demonstrating distinct thematic variations, particular historical contexts, or especially clear expressions of the epistemological master frame concept. Thus, while comprehensive in terms of thematic coverage, the examples analyzed here represent broader ideological patterns rather than an exhaustive inventory of every instance of antisemitic rhetoric within GD’s publications.

The data collection process was not reliant on automated keyword searches or superficial scanning of headlines, a choice necessitated by both the technical limitations of the non-OCR-compliant scanned corpus and the requirement for deep contextual analysis. Instead, the research entailed a comprehensive manual reading of every item in the archive, encompassing full article bodies, permanent columns, reader letters, and even advertisements. This intensive, immersive approach was feasible as it was conducted over an extended period as part of a broader longitudinal research project examining the entirety of GD’s ideological output.

Within this expansive review, the selection process for this specific study focused strictly on identifying explicit references to Jews, Judaism, or Zionism. This manual approach allowed for the detection of nuanced antisemitic tropes that automated methods might miss, ensuring that even coded references (often hidden within seemingly unrelated topics like reader letters or generic political commentary) were captured and cataloged for thematic analysis.

The discourse analysis was contextualized within specific geopolitical events that the newspaper consistently engaged with, such as the Macedonian naming dispute, tensions with Turkey, the Second Intifada, 9/11, the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the economic crisis, and the ensuing immigration crisis. These markers allowed for chronological mapping of how GD’s antisemitic narratives intensified or adapted to evolving domestic and international pressures. By observing the party’s discussions around both global and local flashpoints, the analysis pinpoints moments when conspiratorial allegations against Jews gained new traction.

A significant portion of the cited examples comes from Antiochos, a pseudonymous author who maintained a permanent column titled “Against the Maccabees” — itself a reference to the historical events upon which the Jewish festival of Hanukkah is based, where according to tradition, the Seleucid Hellenists (יוונים, “Greeks” in Hebrew) fought the Jews of Judea in the 2^nd century BCE. His column addressed contemporary issues from a cynical, satirical perspective, unlike the rest of the articles in the newspaper, which were written in a fairly journalistic style.

The column first appeared in issue #453 (January 9, 2003) on the 10th anniversary of the newspaper, though it was preceded by a column penned by another author named “Achious,” and there is no way of knowing whether they are the same person. Antiochos’s column ran for approximately five years until its sudden and unexplained disappearance in issue #641 (May 7, 2008). He represents an inseparable and important part of the newspaper’s ideological output during this crucial period, and this is reflected in Antiochos’s role as GD’s primary ideological theorist on foreign policy and conspiracy matters during the 2003–2010 period.

To address a potential bias, the analysis consistently cross-references his perspectives with unsigned editorial pieces, other columnists, and official party statements, ensuring that conclusions reflect broader organizational positions rather than individual viewpoints.

The qualitative discourse analysis followed a systematic thematic coding approach adapted for extremist materials. Because GD’s rhetorical style is generally direct, a combined thematic-content analysis was sufficient to capture overt antisemitic claims, conspiratorial frames, and the party’s broader ideological alignment. While the categorization process itself was carried out manually, each relevant item was systematically recorded and organized in an Excel database with fields for date, author, main theme, specific antisemitic tropes employed, target of criticism, and rhetorical strategies. Primary codes included “conspiracy theories,” “historical revisionism,” “Holocaust denial/relativization,” “scapegoating,” and “normative transgression,” while secondary analysis examined how these codes clustered around major geopolitical events and domestic crises.

This approach allowed for efficient retrieval, cross-referencing, and tracking of recurring motifs such as accusations of Jewish financial control, Holocaust denial, or anti-Zionist tropes depicting Jews as orchestrators of Greece’s economic or political woes. The manual coding process allowed for nuanced interpretation of implicit meanings and contextual significance that automated methods might miss.

Finally, a qualitative discourse approach was chosen to illuminate rhetorical devices, historical reinterpretations, and persuasion strategies characteristic of far-right political formations. By focusing on explicit statements, this method allowed for a close reading of GD’s public messaging, revealing how antisemitic tropes were woven into broader narratives of national identity and perceived foreign threats. Additional historical details and secondary sources, discussed in the literature review, provide a contextual framework for understanding how Greece’s socio-political environment shaped — and was shaped by — GD’s repeated invocation of conspiratorial antisemitism.

Meta-conspiracy: constructing an all-encompassing Jewish plot

GD’s conspiratorial discourse knits together a host of otherwise disparate issues: Greek foreign policy dilemmas, tensions in the Middle East, immigration, the Macedonian naming dispute, and alleged subservience of Western governments to “Zionist” interests into a single, overarching “meta-conspiracy.”

By interpreting these arenas as manifestations of a singular Jewish plan to undermine Greece and Europe, GD presented its followers with a sweeping explanatory framework that promised clarity amid complex socio-political developments. This approach underpins GD’s epistemological master frame, in which antisemitic sentiment is not merely one among many prejudices, but the unifying logic behind all threats to the nation and, indeed, the world.

This conspiratorial discourse became evident from the very first newspaper issue it published, in January 1993, where it focused on the Macedonian naming dispute as a critical example of supposed Zionist intervention in Greek affairs. This foundational text, titled “Macedonia and Zionism” (Χρυσή Αυγή 1993a), set the tone for how GD would interpret domestic and foreign policy challenges through a unifying belief in an overarching Jewish conspiracy. Although the question of Macedonia had deep historical roots (Armakolas and Siakas Reference Armakolas and Siakas2022; Sjöberg 2011), GD presented the dispute as an instance of deliberate orchestration by “international organizations and major television networks” acting under Jewish influence.

According to GD, the alleged international community’s sympathy for Skopje’s aspirations masked a Zionist plot, part of a broader pattern of Jewish collaboration with Ottoman and subsequently Yugoslav authorities to undermine Greek national interests. Drawing on historical references such as the Ottoman conquest of Thessaloniki and alleged Jewish participation in anti-Greek activities during the Balkan Wars, GD argued that Jewish communities consistently opposed Greek sovereignty by supporting whichever foreign power dominated the region.

GD then extended these accusations into modern geopolitical developments, contending that the dissolution of Yugoslavia and Skopje’s bid for independence were further steps in an overarching Zionist plan to destabilize Greek national unity. The party pointed to symbolic moments like the celebration of 500 years of Jewish presence in the region in 1992, and singled out influential Jewish figures such as Morton Abramowitz, the former United States Ambassador to Turkey, presenting their involvement as evidence of a longstanding plot to weaken Greece.

The lead editorial builds a three-step conspiratorial syllogism. Diagnostic: Greek sovereignty is undone by a transnational network of financiers and media “engineers” marked as Jewish/Zionist. Prognostic: redemption requires exposing this meta-agent and reconstituting an ethnically bounded polity. Motivational: the struggle is existential, and “internal Hellenists” are folded back into the same Jewish plot. The fusion of technicist vocabulary (global finance, governance) with moral absolutes (degeneracy, treason) produces epistemic closure: once Jews are posited as the meta-agent, nothing can fall outside their control.

This conspiratorial interpretation was not merely asserted but carefully constructed through specific rhetorical strategies visible in the text itself. It opens with apparent scholarly objectivity, acknowledging the historical complexity of regional disputes before immediately pivoting to conspiratorial causation that attributes international sympathy for Skopje to Jewish influence over media and diplomatic organizations. This rhetorical move from complexity to conspiracy established the epistemological pattern that would define GD’s approach to all subsequent crises. The article collapses centuries of regional conflict into evidence of a singular plot spanning from the Ottoman conquest through the Balkan Wars to Yugoslavia’s dissolution. This temporal compression transforms contingent historical events into proof of intentional Jewish design, while the text’s tone oscillates between scholarly detachment and apocalyptic urgency, a combination that would become characteristic of GD’s mature ideological style.

By merging historical grievances with contemporary events, GD portrayed the Macedonian naming issue not as an isolated regional dispute but as a key facet of a global Jewish conspiracy directed against Greek interests.

In the early 1990s, GD expanded its references to Zionist manipulation by linking virtually every major point of tension in Greek foreign policy to the same purported orchestrators. Various articles implicated Jewish involvement in the longstanding disputes over the Aegean and Thrace, arguing that Turkey was effectively propped up by an “international Zionist network” aiming to undermine Greece, such as the “Zionist Government of the USA” (Χρυσή Αυγή 1997). Figures such as Henry Kissinger were singled out as “fanatical Zionists,” with GD texts accusing him of engineering American policies that subverted Greek sovereignty (Χρυσή Αυγή 1997). This overarching narrative depicted Washington itself as a “Zionist government,” suggesting that what might otherwise be explained by local rivalries or historical forces was, in fact, the calculated outcome of a global Jewish scheme.

Over the following years, the party kept arguing that a single persecutory agent stood behind every threat to Greek interests. In one commentary, GD repeated the alleged claim that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had said, “We, the Jewish people, control America,” in an article titled “Who rules the world?” (Χρυσή Αυγή 2001d), contending that even the USA was subservient to a Jewish grand design. For GD, any question of international finance, diplomatic treaties, or potential alliances was thus reduced to a central confrontation between Hellenism and a monolithic Zionist power.

Later, a domestic event offered GD new evidence for its overarching theory: four Israeli nationals were arrested in Crete, allegedly for photographing military installations without authorization. The article was titled “Zionist occupation! What did the Jewish spies want in Crete?” (Χρυσή Αυγή 2001e). Because the suspects were released without charge, GD’s coverage presented the outcome as proof of “Jewish domination” of Greek institutions, pointing to pressure from the Israeli state as the real reason the individuals were freed. The newspaper repeatedly called them “spies” and used the incident to claim that law enforcement officials, judges, and politicians were all cowering before a global Jewish network.

Although GD had already built a wide-ranging conspiracy theory by the late 1990s, the events of September 11, 2001, provided a new catalyst for intensifying its claims. A set of pieces published around that time (Χρυσή Αυγή 2001a; 2001c) cast doubt on the mainstream reporting of the attacks, accusing “Jewish-controlled” media of airing ten-year-old footage to smear Palestinians and Arabs under false pretenses.

Another article in the same issue insisted that no Israelis or Jews died in the Twin Towers, with a title asking the readers cynically, “COINCIDENCE(?)” (Χρυσή Αυγή 2001b), suggesting that Jews were warned before the attack and that the attacks served to further “Zionist” strategic objectives. These allegations exemplified GD’s tendency to connect every large-scale world event with the same Jewish “hidden hand,” accusing official narratives of concealing deeper plots.

The mechanics of this conspiratorial interpretation become particularly clear in GD’s 9/11 coverage, which demonstrates how the party’s antisemitic framework functioned as an epistemological filter. The aforementioned article exemplifies this process, employing interrogative rhetoric that masquerades speculation as investigation by questioning why no Israelis allegedly died in the Twin Towers and suggesting Jewish employees received advance warning.

The parenthetical question mark in the headline performs crucial work, signaling to readers that apparent coincidences mask deliberate planning while maintaining plausible deniability. The narrative structure follows a predictable progression: apparent anomaly, conspiratorial explanation, and meta-interpretive conclusion that transforms absence of evidence into evidence of conspiracy. The framework renders itself unfalsifiable by interpreting both media silence and media criticism as proof of Jewish complicity in covering up the alleged conspiracy.

In this reinterpretation, 9/11 was not the result of Islamist extremists or geopolitical complexities but simply another move by global conspirators to tighten their grip on world affairs.

As time progressed, GD’s antisemitic meta-conspiracy expanded into Europe well beyond local Greek affairs. In January 2003, the Netherlands was condemned as a “Zionist” stronghold: a “paradise of drugs and carnage” and allegedly “the most anti-Hellenic” state in the region (Αντίοχος 2003a). By attributing Dutch electoral outcomes and political figures’ purported “Jewish-Zionist” affiliations to an anti-Greek posture, GD folded a local foreign election result into its larger narrative of Jewish orchestration.

Concretely, the party singled out Job Cohen, the Jewish mayor of Amsterdam, framing him as an agent of hidden Jewish power and proof that the Netherlands was irredeemably compromised by Zionist influence. In this conspiratorial lens, having a Jewish prime minister candidate inherently signaled a covert plan to undermine Greek sovereignty; moreover, the Netherlands perceived “anti-Hellenic” and “pro-Turkish” stance was not a matter of ordinary diplomacy or social policy, but an outcome of pervasive Jewish involvement in Dutch politics. Consequently, GD collapsed all nuances of international relations into a unifying theory of malicious Jewish dominance, asserting that any country or politician engaging with alleged “Zionist” interests was part of a broader front seeking to weaken Greece.

This logic extended to domestic politics as well, where Greek officials who cooperated with Israel were denounced for capitulating to the same sinister forces, thereby bolstering GD’s overarching theme of a worldwide Jewish plot aimed at eroding Greek national sovereignty.

Such narratives multiplied wherever GD discerned an opportunity to attack domestic leaders. One article (Χρυσή Αυγή 2015b) accused Defense Minister Panos Kammenos of placing Greece “at the service of American Zionists,” referencing his initiatives for NATO bases in the Aegean and alleged support for Israeli military goals. To illustrate further complicity, another text claimed that Turkey and Israel actively assisted jihadist fighters (“mercenaries of Washington Zionists”) so that superficial Western “antiterror” campaigns merely expanded Jewish power. Even in matters like the procurement of Greek military satellites (Αντίοχος 2003f), the party warned that whichever company sold advanced equipment to Athens would inevitably be “Zionist,” thus stripping the country of real sovereignty.

This conspiratorial lens also shaped GD’s views on immigration. An article on illegal immigration (Αλτζερινός - Γρηγοράκης 2011) presented it as a dual scheme by Turkey and Israel to Islamize Greece and bolster Israel’s “strategic depth.” By linking demographic changes to a hidden Zionist agenda, the party converted a regional migration debate into yet another front of the same antisemitic worldview.

Elsewhere, GD lambasted “Greek-speaking leftists” (Αντίοχος 2003d) for supposedly championing pro-immigration policies that abetted “Zionist designs,” and accused mainstream politicians of handing over “land and water to the Zionists,” referring to the ancient symbolic gesture of submission to an Eastern ruler (Χρυσή Αυγή 2011). In each case, the consistent implication was that cultural or demographic shifts within Greece were nothing less than byproducts of a purposeful, internationally coordinated conspiracy.

A key part of GD’s strategy involved rhetorical choices that unified these diverse accusations with harsh, emotive language. Terms like “terror” or “bloodthirsty” infused the party’s coverage of conflicts, converting hostility toward Jews into a presumed moral necessity. For example, in a commentary on the US invasion of Iraq (Αντίοχος 2003c), the party labeled it “Jewish-American barbarities,” insisting that the Jewish diaspora guided US policy for its own expansionist ends.

In a related article, the party warned that Greek soldiers might soon be compelled to fight “for the glory of the American Zionists” (Αντίοχος 2003j). Another piece (Αντίοχος 2003d) contrasted alleged “Jewish-Bolshevik” infiltration in older leftist movements with “Jewish-Capitalist” infiltration in the present day, suggesting that no ideology — from communism to liberal democracy — lay free of Jewish manipulation. By lumping everything from the Soviet era to modern neoliberal finance under a single conspiracy, GD gave supporters a sweeping interpretive framework, steeped in antisemitic stereotypes of cunning and omnipotence.

In the cultural and sports sphere, GD castigated “Zionist Hollywood” for producing movies that exonerated Jews for Christ’s crucifixion (Αντίοχος 2003e). In another issue (Αντίοχος 2003i), GD mocked the notion that Israeli security experts would help protect the 2004 Olympic Games, labeling them “Zionist wolves” tasked with safeguarding Greek “sheep.” Even international entertainment, such as Eurovision, was at times labeled “Zionist-owned and controlled” (Αντίοχος 2003h), signifying that Jewish infiltration purportedly extended into every societal domain.

These references interlaced classic antisemitic tropes: secret financial clout, hidden global alliances, and cultural subversion, with distinctly Greek concerns. For example, in June 2003 (Αντίοχος 2003g), the party rebuked the Jewish-Hungarian philanthrope George Soros as a “Zionist profiteer” for his alleged advocacy on the Macedonian naming dispute, calling his meddling the modern continuation of Jewish intrigues that historically “created the Macedonian problem.” Another article singled out Greek politicians who participated in Holocaust memorial events (Αντίοχος 2003f) as “Jew-lovers,” accusing them of betraying Greek national pride for the sake of forging ties with “Zionist overlords.” Such statements did not merely echo older conspiracies about Jewish wealth or conspiratorial influence; they reframed those themes to validate present-day grievances, be they about austerity policies, minority rights, or diplomatic friction with neighboring states.

Another piece spotlighted Israel’s attempts to formally define itself as a “Jewish Nation-State,” portraying this as incontrovertible racism that “liberal cosmopolitans” refused to condemn (Χρυσή Αυγή 2015a). These controversies led GD to charge that the West hypocritically permitted “Jewish racial policies” while vilifying any European nationalist sentiment. There is no subtext here, but it explicitly states that mainstream media and political elites were themselves beholden to “Zionist masters,” explaining why allegations of Jewish wrongdoing, no matter how severe, rarely gained traction abroad.

Gradually, all these strands combined to form a single meta-conspiracy in which “Zionist infiltration” stood behind every phenomenon. For the party, no sphere of life; from policing and defense to public ceremonies, remained immune. Through such commentaries, GD interwove foreign policy fiascos, local security concerns, and historical grievances, all culminating in a narrative that pictured Greeks as besieged by an invisible but all-powerful Jewish hand. By continually updating these narratives to match current events (Bar Reference Bar2025), GD’s antisemitic worldview remained both flexible and cohesive. When illusions of “Zionist generosity” cropped up, like alleged offers of military hardware “without strings attached” (Αντίοχος 2003b), the party claimed such gestures were really attempts to subvert Greek independence.

When prominent Jewish figures abroad, such as Amsterdam’s mayor Job Cohen, made headlines, GD spun them as further proof of Jewish attempts to seize power even in “the Zionist Netherlands” (Αντίοχος 2003a). Each fresh twist reinforced the same core message: there was one oppressor, one puppet-master controlling manifold events, whether these took place in the Balkans, the Levant, the American heartland, or Western Europe.

GD’s antisemitic discourse ultimately functions as a deeply narrative-making project, drawing members into an alternate historical and cosmic reality rather than a mere set of policy positions. By blending older Christian anti-Judaism with modern Nazi racial ideas and conspiratorial stories, the party constructs a narrative of unending Jewish antagonism that unifies Greek history across the centuries. Members do not simply adopt hateful slogans; they step into a story of inherited victimhood and anticipated redemption, from the crucifixion of Christ to present-day struggles over immigration or European politics. In this mythopoetic world, antisemitism is indispensable. It provides the enemy figure, a supposed timeless Jewish adversary, needed to unite adherents, establish continuity with past conflicts, and give contemporary political activism a transcendent purpose.

In developing this mythic drama, GD also updates classic conspiracy ideas for modern audiences. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion repeatedly reappears as though it offers legitimate proof of every facet of Greece’s current woes, whether foreign debt or social unrest.

When the party retold excerpts from the Protocols in the Greek Parliament, GD explicitly signaled to its base that centuries-old claims about a clandestine “Jewish plan” retain full relevance in the nation’s modern crises. This conspiratorial recasting of historic texts reflects how GD systematically adapts older antisemitic narratives to present conditions. The European Union, the IMF, and other transnational entities become modern versions of “Jewish bankers” or “Zionist rulers,” while local elites are portrayed as complicit instruments. The essential trope, though, remains consistent with 19^th-century myths of a covert Jewish plot behind global affairs.

GD’s overarching conspiratorial narrative aligns with Griffin’s concept of palingenetic ultranationalism, which posits that fascist movements envision national rebirth through a radical rejection of the present corrupted order. By portraying Greece as under siege from omnipresent Jewish influence, depicted as controlling everything from US foreign policy to local territorial disputes, GD framed national rejuvenation as contingent on unmasking and expelling this perceived existential threat. This mythic vision of renewal through conspiracy facilitated the party’s portrayal of Greece as a nation destined for revival, cleansed of internal and external “contaminations” orchestrated by Jewish agents. GD’s insistence that exposing this hidden enemy was necessary for national survival underscores how antisemitic conspiracies were central to its radical vision of Greek rebirth.

The expansive scope and intricacy of GD’s antisemitic conspiracy theories also illustrate Hofstadter’s concept of the “paranoid style” in political discourse. GD consistently constructed elaborate scenarios where unrelated events, from Macedonia’s naming dispute and Turkish diplomatic tensions to American geopolitical stances, were interconnected elements of a meticulously orchestrated Jewish plot. Each instance reinforced a perception of constant and insidious threat, a hallmark of the paranoid style, enabling GD supporters to interpret all events as proof of a hidden Jewish agenda. By employing this paranoid epistemology, GD fostered a worldview that rejected complexity and uncertainty, instead offering a coherent, though conspiratorial, explanation for Greece’s multifaceted crises.

In essence, GD’s antisemitism integrates mythopoesis, conspiracy theories, and prewar Christian anti-Judaism. By weaving older accusations, like Jews as deicidal enemies, into Nazi-era theories of Jewish global dominance, and then embedding these into debates over Greek autonomy, the party has created a sweeping meta-narrative in which Jewish enmity is constant. This mythic outlook is not peripheral to GD’s identity; it serves as the engine that drives the party’s “political theology,” converting contemporary politics into a grand conflict between Greek nationalism and an ever-present Jewish adversary.

Deliberate transgression of post-Holocaust European norms after World War II

By the time the GD emerged as a political force in the early 1990s, a significant transformation had occurred across Europe in the preceding decades. The horrors of World War II and the systematic extermination of European Jewry had fostered a powerful, albeit sometimes fragile, consensus. This post-war consensus fundamentally shifted public discourse, positioning overt antisemitism, Holocaust denial, and the trivialization of Nazi crimes as morally reprehensible and politically taboo. Respect for Holocaust memory became, in many ways, a cornerstone of a redefined European identity committed to preventing the recurrence of such atrocities (Cronin Reference Cronin2025; Rathje Reference Rathje, Lange, Mayerhofer, Porat and Schiffman2021; Wodak Reference Wodak2015). Yet, as the content of its official newspaper archive demonstrates, GD deliberately and consistently defied this consensus.

Their approach was not merely an echo of older antisemitic sentiments but a conscious and unapologetic confrontation with the established post-1945 moral and political boundaries concerning Jews and the Holocaust. This confrontation became a central feature of GD’s identity, signaling to its followers and opponents alike that the party rejected any limitations on its xenophobic and racist rhetoric derived from the European post-war experience, including the broad proscription against direct, undisguised antisemitism and the imperative to respectfully remember the Holocaust. As we shall see, GD executed this deliberate transgression through two primary avenues: the propagation of overt, often virulent antisemitism, recycling classic tropes and conspiracies, and the active delegitimization of Holocaust memory and its associated norms.

One of the most striking manifestations of GD’s overt antisemitism was its unabashed promotion of core antisemitic texts and foundational conspiracy theories, particularly the notorious forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as we have seen in the previous section in another context. In direct defiance of the post-war understanding of the Protocols as dangerous hate literature instrumental in fomenting violence against Jews, GD actively defended its legitimacy and relevance.

An article explicitly tackled the question of the text’s authenticity, dismissing arguments of forgery and asserting its truth based on a conspiratorial reading of current events: “Now as to whether the ‘Protocols’ are fake or real, it is very clear from what was written then […] and from what is happening today […] If what the book says will happen, happened or is happening, then it is TRUE, if NOT then it is fake. What greater a-proof is needed?” (Χρυσή Αυγή 1995a), hinting that the conspiracies mentioned in the Protocols have real-life resonance.

This defense was not isolated; another piece suggested that Palestinians should place more credence in the Protocols than in internationally brokered peace agreements (specifically, the Oslo Accords, in this instance), framing the latter as Zionist deceptions while implicitly validating the former’s worldview (Χρυσή Αυγή 1995b).

By championing the Protocols, GD was not just recycling an old antisemitic text; it was deliberately validating the conspiratorial mindset that blames Jews for global ills. This embrace of such a foundational antisemitic text underscores the intentionality behind GD’s transgression of post-war norms.

This overarching conspiratorial worldview was frequently deployed to blame Jews for specific historical and contemporary crises, transgressing norms against antisemitic scapegoating in profound ways. Perhaps the most extreme example of historical revisionism aimed at inciting hatred involved blaming Jews for the Greek Asia Minor Catastrophe of 1922. GD dedicated significant space to republishing and endorsing excerpts from a virulently antisemitic 1928 text. This source portrayed Jews in Smyrna as treacherous collaborators with the Turkish forces, accusing them of horrific acts against the Greek population during the city’s fall.

GD amplified the source’s extreme invective: “monsters,” “vile instruments,” “snakes,” “accursed race,” “descendants of Judah [Judas Iscariot],” and explicitly endorsed its conclusion, which included rhetorical questions amounting to calls for exclusion and hostility: “Why do we tolerate them? […] Why are Jewish MPs allowed to be accepted into our parliament? Why do we let them suck our blood? […] The drachma given to a Jew will be turned into a rope to strangle us. As long as we have Jews in our midst, we have snakes ready to devour us, to destroy us” (Χρυσή Αυγή 1993b). This assigning of collective blame to Jews for a profound national trauma, coupled with explicitly dehumanizing and demonizing language and thinly veiled threats, directly mirrors the most dangerous forms of pre-Holocaust antisemitic rhetoric, deliberately rejecting the post-war imperative against such incitement.

This pattern of scapegoating extended seamlessly into contemporary events. GD readily embraced and propagated antisemitic conspiracy theories surrounding the 2003 war in Iraq, which was filtered through this antisemitic lens; the newspaper platformed the loaded question, “Why is no one saying that the Jews are behind this war?” and casually dismissed the US President as merely an “instrument of Zionism” (Αντίοχος 2003c).

Parallel to its propagation of overt antisemitism, GD actively engaged in the systematic delegitimization of Holocaust memory, directly challenging the norms of remembrance, respect, and historical understanding that became central to post-war European identity. One consistent marker of this defiance lay in GD’s scorn for Holocaust commemorations and associated events. As we have already seen before, articles explicitly ridiculed Greek politicians who attended such ceremonies, contemptuously branding them “Jew-lovers” and portraying their participation as a betrayal of Greek national interests for the sake of pleasing alleged “Zionist overlords” (Αντίοχος 2003f).

Through these characterizations, GD deliberately inverted the established post-war moral narrative. Whereas mainstream European discourse regards Holocaust commemoration as a solemn obligation to remember victims, learn from history, and reject racist ideologies, GD reframed it as a degrading act of political submission to foreign (specifically Jewish/Zionist) interests and thus a subject fit only for nationalistic mockery. The implication was clear: official Greek participation in Holocaust memorials reflected not shared humanistic values or historical responsibility, but rather political subservience and national weakness. By denigrating these ceremonies, GD flouted the shared European norm against antisemitism precisely by targeting one of its key symbolic expressions — the act of remembrance — turning that norm itself into an object of derision.

This pattern of normative inversion became even more pronounced during GD’s criminal prosecution, when the party transformed legal jeopardy into evidence of the very Jewish conspiracy it claimed to expose. Facing charges for operating as a criminal organization, GD’s 2015 materials employed what can be described as victimization reversal, positioning the party as persecuted truth-tellers while claiming that the same forces controlling international finance now controlled Greek courts. The text follows classical martyrdom narrative structure, moving from apparent injustice to cosmic significance and concluding with prophetic vindication, thereby transforming mundane legal proceedings into a mythic struggle.

Crucially, despite tactical moderation of explicitly antisemitic language during this period, the underlying epistemological framework remained intact. References to American Zionists, international financiers, and global networks maintained the conspiratorial structure through coded language, confirming that the meta-conspiracy remained central to GD’s worldview even when direct antisemitic rhetoric was strategically constrained.

A particular strategy employed by GD was Holocaust relativization; minimizing the event’s uniqueness and moral weight by equating it with other historical or contemporary events, or even by casting Jews themselves as perpetrators of comparable atrocities. A stark example of this involves the elaborate historical fabrication concerning the German General Liman von Sanders, an advisor to the Ottoman Empire during World War I. GD claimed Sanders was a “demonic crypto-Jew” who personally orchestrated the genocide of Armenian and Greek populations via the infamous labor battalions (Χρυσή Αυγή 1996).

This narrative served multiple delegitimizing functions: it falsely implicated Jews in perpetrating genocide against Christians, but crucially, the article explicitly drew a parallel between Sanders’ alleged genocidal plan and contemporary Israeli policies: “the same plan that his contemporaries in Israel applied after the war against the Arabs.” This comparison functions both to portray Jews/Israelis as inherently genocidal — a classic antisemitic trope — and to relativize the Holocaust by equating it with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, stripping the former of its historical specificity and unparalleled scale.

This tactic of equating Israeli actions with Nazi-era crimes appeared as well; for instance, by juxtaposing alleged “Zionist terrorism” with the trial of the French collaborator Maurice Papon, who was convicted for his role in deporting Jews to Auschwitz (Χρυσή Αυγή 1998), GD again attempted to draw a false moral equivalence, thereby trivializing the context and significance of the Holocaust itself.

Taken together, GD’s antisemitic discourse constitutes a deliberate political act of normative subversion. By unapologetically reviving the Protocols, defending Holocaust denial, blaming Jews for national catastrophes, and portraying commemoration rituals as political humiliation, GD seeks not only to rehabilitate antisemitism but to undermine the very ethical foundations upon which post-war European identity is constructed. This is not merely rhetorical provocation; it is a form of ideological warfare aimed at eroding the moral architecture that arose from the memory of the Holocaust and the defeat of interwar fascism. The party’s persistent denial, revisionism, and symbolic inversion are not peripheral features of its discourse, but central mechanisms through which it challenges the legitimacy of liberal democracy, internationalism, and pluralism.

What makes GD’s normative transgressions particularly insidious is the strategic use of historical inversion and victim-perpetrator reversal. By portraying Jews as both conspirators in Greece’s past traumas and aggressors in the modern Middle East, GD offers a narrative in which Jewish suffering is either denied, relativized, or weaponized against itself. This move does not merely contest facts; it seeks to annul the moral consequences of the Holocaust altogether. In doing so, GD asserts its radical alterity, not just from political elites or leftist opponents, but from the entire post-Holocaust European consensus. The party’s defiance of this consensus functions both as a declaration of ideological purity to its base and as a provocation designed to test, mock, and ultimately erode the boundaries of acceptable discourse in Greece and beyond.

At the heart of this antisemitic campaign lies a process of narrative-making: the fabrication of a coherent, emotionally resonant myth in which “the Jew” plays a timeless, omnipresent antagonist in the Greek historical drama. GD’s discourse does not merely regurgitate anti-Jewish canards; it reworks them into a symbolic mythology that aligns the Greek nation’s past sufferings with contemporary anxieties. Through historical revisionism, GD constructs a linear and teleological story: the same enemy, acting under different guises, has repeatedly thwarted Greek national destiny. This mythologization transforms scattered conspiracies into a sacred narrative arc, endowing the party’s antisemitism with both emotional potency and perceived historical legitimacy.

Finally, GD’s transgression of post-Holocaust norms cannot be fully understood without recognizing its performative and symbolic dimensions. In defying the ethical injunctions against antisemitism, the party does not simply reject a set of historical claims; it rejects the normative legitimacy of the institutions, ideologies, and moral codes that have defined post-war Europe.

Antisemitism thus becomes not just a prejudice but a political posture, a ritual of resistance against the perceived tyranny of liberalism, multiculturalism, and international law. Through this posture, GD transforms what might otherwise appear as ideological anachronism into a contemporary act of rebellion. The deliberate flaunting of taboo, the mocking of Holocaust commemoration, and the sacralization of historical inversion become acts of symbolic violence aimed not only at Jews, but at the entire moral order that constrains the fascist imagination.